Australia used to be a lush jungle and also used to be connected with Antarctica which was also a lush jungle. Moving south messed up the Antarctica side of course, melting glaciers added enough water to turn the big continent into separate islands of Antarctica, Australia, New Guinea, Tasmania, New Zealand and such. One thing that is missing in the animals of Australia is small burrowing animals like ground squirrels (called gophers here in Canada). Australia still has some mole-like marsupials and the giant-sized burrowing wombat but no common squirrel-sized burrowing animal. I figure that deserts are created mostly from ground water levels dropping far enough to not be keeping the ground moist enough for trees. Once the trees are gone, the land gets full sun and dries up fast. The trees also create the humid air to make new clouds that move further inland to keep that ocean-sourced water moving across the continent they are passing over. Only a couple hundred years ago, Argentina (south-east part of South America) used to have much more rain forest like the Amazon basin has but farmers cleared the land to grow crops. Very quickly the land dried up enough to only support cattle and sheep grazing. Now it is even too dry for that in many places. I propose that small burrowing animals in high numbers are needed to keep the water table high by letting rain water soak into the ground. Beavers can also help keep the water from flowing away or the land can be flat like the Amazon basin making water flow slowly and flooding the land often for months. The biggest change that people fear from global warming is sea level rising and flooding 95% of the world's urban areas. The second fear is crop land drying up. Wet soil holds a lot of water so it might be a convenient arrangement to reclaim deserts by raising the water table using beaver-like dams and encouraging ground squirrels and similar animals in grass lands that are too dry for big trees.

95% of the population lives within 20 feet of sea level and they won't move? The population will crash that much well before the ocean level rises that much anyway. Of course you have the usual idiot denialists of AGW, and overpopulation, for that matter.Being well on course toward a 6*C temperature rise unless drastic measures are taken VERY quickly, it is assured that the tipping point of tundra methane self release we were reported AT in 2009, will be well passed and nothing will stop a similar event, quicker by far, than the thermal maximum of approximately 55 million years ago. If it gets that far from lack of doing anything, then most species will go extinct. With something so threatening, you would think that discretion would be to reduce emissions the 90% recommended by 2020. Then you have the greed of corporate fossil fuel sellers and users, and their minions, the snow eater denialists, preventing enough change in time.Denialists tend to disregard the sensitivity of tundra methane release, or look at the sensitivity to minor warming for oceanic methane hydrate deposits, which tend toward explosive release at +1*C or by mechanical action like attempted mining or seismic events.Of course, the methane turns to CO2 and water vapor after 15 years, with the CO2 continuing the heat trapping effect to a lesser extent and the water vapor with a slight positive heat trapping effect.There are those who think we will be OK with a 50% drop in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 (when the population will be crashing or close to it). They think it will hold AGW to 2*C, and also disregard the sensitivity of the tundra methane tipping point, and the heat increase concentrating at the north polar regions more than anywhere else (although the increase will have profound effects on the Antarctic, too). Canada may benefit temporarily, with a greater growing area and longer growing season, but, personally, I think all denialists should be rounded up and sent to "disintegration booths".

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

95% of the population lives within 20 feet of sea level and they won't move? The population will crash that much well before the ocean level rises that much anyway. Of course you have the usual idiot denialists of AGW, and overpopulation, for that matter.Being well on course toward a 6*C temperature rise unless drastic measures are taken VERY quickly, it is assured that the tipping point of tundra methane self release we were reported AT in 2009, will be well passed and nothing will stop a similar event, quicker by far, than the thermal maximum of approximately 55 million years ago. If it gets that far from lack of doing anything, then most species will go extinct. With something so threatening, you would think that discretion would be to reduce emissions the 90% recommended by 2020. Then you have the greed of corporate fossil fuel sellers and users, and their minions, the snow eater denialists, preventing enough change in time.Denialists tend to disregard the sensitivity of tundra methane release, or look at the sensitivity to minor warming for oceanic methane hydrate deposits, which tend toward explosive release at +1*C or by mechanical action like attempted mining or seismic events.Of course, the methane turns to CO2 and water vapor after 15 years, with the CO2 continuing the heat trapping effect to a lesser extent and the water vapor with a slight positive heat trapping effect.There are those who think we will be OK with a 50% drop in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 (when the population will be crashing or close to it). They think it will hold AGW to 2*C, and also disregard the sensitivity of the tundra methane tipping point, and the heat increase concentrating at the north polar regions more than anywhere else (although the increase will have profound effects on the Antarctic, too). Canada may benefit temporarily, with a greater growing area and longer growing season, but, personally, I think all denialists should be rounded up and sent to "disintegration booths".

I see the denialist is back. What happened, get banned from the other place, finally??? This place isn't for anti-environmentalists like you either! I can't think of how bad a name you deserve, but it is the worst possible. Disrespect fully intended toward all denialists.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

95% of the population lives within 20 feet of sea level and they won't move? The population will crash that much well before the ocean level rises that much anyway. Of course you have the usual idiot denialists of AGW, and overpopulation, for that matter.Being well on course toward a 6*C temperature rise unless drastic measures are taken VERY quickly, it is assured that the tipping point of tundra methane self release we were reported AT in 2009, will be well passed and nothing will stop a similar event, quicker by far, than the thermal maximum of approximately 55 million years ago. If it gets that far from lack of doing anything, then most species will go extinct. With something so threatening, you would think that discretion would be to reduce emissions the 90% recommended by 2020. Then you have the greed of corporate fossil fuel sellers and users, and their minions, the snow eater denialists, preventing enough change in time.Denialists tend to disregard the sensitivity of tundra methane release, or look at the sensitivity to minor warming for oceanic methane hydrate deposits, which tend toward explosive release at +1*C or by mechanical action like attempted mining or seismic events.Of course, the methane turns to CO2 and water vapor after 15 years, with the CO2 continuing the heat trapping effect to a lesser extent and the water vapor with a slight positive heat trapping effect.There are those who think we will be OK with a 50% drop in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 (when the population will be crashing or close to it). They think it will hold AGW to 2*C, and also disregard the sensitivity of the tundra methane tipping point, and the heat increase concentrating at the north polar regions more than anywhere else (although the increase will have profound effects on the Antarctic, too). Canada may benefit temporarily, with a greater growing area and longer growing season, but, personally, I think all denialists should be rounded up and sent to "disintegration booths".

I see the denialist is back. What happened, get banned from the other place, finally??? This place isn't for anti-environmentalists like you either! I can't think of how bad a name you deserve, but it is the worst possible. Disrespect fully intended toward all denialists.

What are "denialists" denying besides disagreeing with your view on climate change?

It isn't "my view". It is the view of 97% of climate scientists. >>>>It is well documented that we are going in the direction of the worse than worst case scenario with AGW, and it is accelerating.<<<<* Eventually, even people like you will see and feel it, but by then it will be too late to stop the worst case scenario. >>>Tipping points we are at now will be well passed, thanks to inaction caused by the efforts of denier cultists<<<* like you.<<** REPORT TO YOUR LOCAL DISINTEGRATION BOOTH, NOW!!!

*from 2009 reports that got lost on this site, but certainly snow can google.Is the request to report a threat?? How can it be when it requires your action to go to a fictitious place?? Too young for Star Trek, the original series, obviously.**like you, meaning your reputation for being a denialist of CAGW by others, and what posts I have seen of yours.

Are there emotions or feelings involved with me? Of course, I dislike all who are causing delays in reducing pollution including CO2, delays in stopping depletion of resources, and those causing the destruction of our biosphere.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

I am not an anti-environmentalist but rather I take my views even further then most environmentalists and want to stop all farming too for the sake of the wildlife. The difference is I am also a realist looking for solutions that ***I*** can implement. What I can do is develop ways to be self sufficient and teach them to the 3rd world where they have not been sucked into the industrialized world's consumerism form of slavery. What I cannot do is change the current society or the resulting weather changes and any future disaster that may result. I do not deny that things are getting hotter and that it is likely close to 100% our fault but as I said, I cannot do any thing about that other then prepare for the results. Beaver dams and gopher holes might just be the best band-aid for the mortal wound on this planet.

It isn't "my view". It is the view of 97% of climate scientists. It is well documented that we are going in the direction of the worse than worst case scenario with AGW, and it is accelerating. Eventually, even people like you will see and feel it, but by then it will be too late to stop the worst case scenario. Tipping points we are at now will be well passed, thanks to inaction caused by the efforts of denier cultists like you. REPORT TO YOUR LOCAL DISINTEGRATION BOOTH, NOW!!!

That 97% value is not correct.

The fact that insults and death threats are being used without provocation over a disagreement indicates more of a religious belief than a scientific belief.

It isn't "my view". It is the view of 97% of climate scientists. It is well documented that we are going in the direction of the worse than worst case scenario with AGW, and it is accelerating. Eventually, even people like you will see and feel it, but by then it will be too late to stop the worst case scenario. Tipping points we are at now will be well passed, thanks to inaction caused by the efforts of denier cultists like you. REPORT TO YOUR LOCAL DISINTEGRATION BOOTH, NOW!!!

That 97% value is not correct.

It is based on two separate sources of data, the poll of those who claimed to be cliamte scientists and had published in the arena and the study of published papers both arrived at similar results using two different methodologies.

Quote:

The fact that insults and death threats are being used without provocation over a disagreement indicates more of a religious belief than a scientific belief.

The death threats are not from the scientists, but from those outside who have become involved. That does not make it any more of a religious belief than not, but it does make it a contentious debate.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

It is based on two separate sources of data, the poll of those who claimed to be cliamte scientists and had published in the arena and the study of published papers both arrived at similar results using two different methodologies.

Assigning credibility or expertise is a fraught issue, particularly in a wicked phenomenon like climate change—as Anderegg et al. (1) discussed in a recent issue of PNAS. However, their analysis of expert credibility into two distinct “convinced” and “unconvinced” camps and the lack of nuance in defining the terms “climate deniers,” “skeptics,” and “contrarians” both oversimplify and increase polarization within the climate debate.

Unlike contrarian or skeptic, the term climate denier is listed in their key terms. Using the language of denialism brings a moralistic tone into the climate change debate that we would do well to avoid. Further, labeling views as denialist has the potential to inappropriately link such views with Holocaust denial. The article then uses the terminology “skeptic/contrarian” throughout. However, skepticism forms an integral part of the scientific method, and, thus, the term is frequently misapplied in such phrases as “climate change skeptic.” Contrarianism, on the other hand, implies a rather different perspective on anthropogenic climate change.

McCright (2) defines climate contrarians to be those who vocally challenge what they see as a false consensus of mainstream climate science through critical attacks on climate science and eminent climate scientists, often with substantial financial support from fossil fuels industry organizations and conservative think tanks. We expand on the connections between claims-making and funding to also include ideological motives behind criticizing and dismissing aspects of climate change science. Importantly, this definition of contrarian specifically identifies those who critically and vocally attack climate science—those who Anderegg et al. (1) indiscriminately identify as skeptics, contrarians, and deniers. It does not include individuals who are thus far unconvinced by the science (due, in part, to the voracious media coverage garnered by climate contrarians as identified above) or individuals who are unconvinced by proposed solutions.

The use of the terms skeptic, denier, or contrarian is necessarily subject-, issue-, context-, and intervention-dependent. Blanket labeling of heterogeneous views under one of these headings has been shown to do little to further considerations of climate science and policy (3). Continued indiscriminate use of the terms will further polarize views on climate change, reduce media coverage to tit-for-tat finger-pointing, and do little to advance the unsteady relationship among climate science, society, and policy.

Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field “support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers” (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today. However, whereas expert credibility and prominence may dominate the opinion of what is true, it can never alter truth itself.

Young et al. (2) argue that publications in highly cited journals are relatively prone to be incorrect, and a young frustrated researcher wrote the following: “Very little creativity can be expected from scientists living in an atmosphere where you cannot ‘waste’ time on thinking about the science you are doing, but must rather spend time thinking where to get the next grant money from. In the research grant game, and thereby the papers game, you can't displease your colleagues.” The addressee was Storetvedt, who has openly challenged the established theory of continental drift. Storetvedt (3) argues that “the history of science demonstrates that the acceptance of proposals … implying that a ‘world view’ everyone has embraced should be given up—has always been met by massive resistance” (p. 397 in ref. 3). Classical research, moreover, shows that people are willing to accept obvious untruths in the presence of strong group pressure (4). A climate researcher has to decide which paradigm to pursue; will he get the same number of grants, publications, or citations by embracing the minority view among his peers? I believe not.

I do not claim that the ACC hypothesis is incorrect, but history has shown that predominating paradigms can be proven wrong. Thor Heyerdahl—the Kon-Tiki Man—was strongly opposed for his controversial theories, but sailing on a wooden raft from Peru to Polynesia in 1947, he showed that it was possible for the pre-Incan people to have colonized the South Pacific islands. Helge and Anne Stine Ingstad were also strongly criticized for their belief that the Vikings reached the American continent, but in 1960, they documented a Norse settlement at Newfoundland dating back to the 11th century. The works by Heyerdahl and the Ingstads were endorsed by Time to be among the most influential scientific achievements in the past century (5). Could it be that some of the researchers questioning the ACC hypothesis will be endorsed as the greatest scientists of the 21st century?

The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. The authors' treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority (1). The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all. The authors' framing of expertise was especially problematic. In a casting pregnant with self-fulfillment, the authors defined number of publications as expertise (italics). The italics were then dropped. Morphing the data of metrics into the conclusion of expertise (not italicized) was best supported by explicit argument in the Discussion section rather than by subtle wordplay. The same applied to prominence, although here the authors’ construct was more aligned with common usage, and of course, prominence does not connote knowledge and correctness in the same way as expertise.

Scientific merit does not derive from the number, productivity, or prominence of those holding a certain view—truth by majority rule or oligarchical fiat. The history of science is replete with views (e.g., a geocentric universe or the immutability of species) that were widely held, held by the most prominent of men, and wrong. Here, we do not have homogeneous consensus absent a few crackpot dissenters. There is variation among the majority, and a minority, with core competency, who question some underlying premises. It would seem more profitable to critique the scientific evidence than count up scientists, publications, and the like. Policy needs may require action before scientific certainty, but one should not confuse taking a stand with obliteration of the factual and interpretive uncertainties underlying that stand. The majority of climate scientists favor some form of anthropogenic CC (and that view is not disputed here). That they overshadow the small minority of dissenters in certain publication metrics is to be expected as almost tautological.

In the logical fallacy of an ad hominem argument, the characteristics, qualities, or failings of adversaries rather than the merits of their case are argued. Here, the authors addressed the worth of CC critics (and agnostics) as scientists rather than the validity of their science (1). Regarding purely scientific questions, it may be justified to discount nonexperts. However, here, dissenters included established climate researchers. The article undermined their expert standing and then, extrapolated expertise to the more personal credibility. Using these methods to portray certain researchers as not credible and, by implication, to be ignored is highly questionable. Tarring them as individuals by group metrics is unwarranted.

Publication of this article as an objective scientific study does a true disservice to scientific discourse. Prominent scientific journals must focus on scientific merit without sway from extracurricular forces. They must remain cautious about lending their imprimatur to works that seem more about agenda and less about science, more about promoting a certain dogma and less about using all of the evidence to better our understanding of the natural world.

In a summary of their survey on the opinion about global warming among Earth scientists (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman conclude that the debate on the role of human activity is largely nonexistent, and that the challenge is “how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers” and to the public.

However, I argue that neither of these conclusions can be drawn from the survey. For example, one issue that is much discussed in the public debate is the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming. Perhaps there is not much debate about this issue among scientists, but this cannot be concluded from the survey, in which nothing is said about such emissions. In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to “human activity.”

The feature article “Examining the scientific consensus on climate change,” by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), while interesting, has a primary flaw that calls their interpretation into question. In their opening sentence, the authors state that on the basis of polling data, “47% [of Americans] think climate scientists agree… that human activities are a major cause of that [global] warming….” They then described the two-question survey they had posed to a large group of Earth scientists and scientifically literate (I presume) people in related fields. While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase “major cause” in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase “significant contributing factor.” There is a large difference between these two phrases.

It is based on two separate sources of data, the poll of those who claimed to be cliamte scientists and had published in the arena and the study of published papers both arrived at similar results using two different methodologies.

Assigning credibility or expertise is a fraught issue, particularly in a wicked phenomenon like climate change—as Anderegg et al. (1) discussed in a recent issue of PNAS. However, their analysis of expert credibility into two distinct “convinced” and “unconvinced” camps and the lack of nuance in defining the terms “climate deniers,” “skeptics,” and “contrarians” both oversimplify and increase polarization within the climate debate.

Unlike contrarian or skeptic, the term climate denier is listed in their key terms. Using the language of denialism brings a moralistic tone into the climate change debate that we would do well to avoid. Further, labeling views as denialist has the potential to inappropriately link such views with Holocaust denial. The article then uses the terminology “skeptic/contrarian” throughout. However, skepticism forms an integral part of the scientific method, and, thus, the term is frequently misapplied in such phrases as “climate change skeptic.” Contrarianism, on the other hand, implies a rather different perspective on anthropogenic climate change.

McCright (2) defines climate contrarians to be those who vocally challenge what they see as a false consensus of mainstream climate science through critical attacks on climate science and eminent climate scientists, often with substantial financial support from fossil fuels industry organizations and conservative think tanks. We expand on the connections between claims-making and funding to also include ideological motives behind criticizing and dismissing aspects of climate change science. Importantly, this definition of contrarian specifically identifies those who critically and vocally attack climate science—those who Anderegg et al. (1) indiscriminately identify as skeptics, contrarians, and deniers. It does not include individuals who are thus far unconvinced by the science (due, in part, to the voracious media coverage garnered by climate contrarians as identified above) or individuals who are unconvinced by proposed solutions.

The use of the terms skeptic, denier, or contrarian is necessarily subject-, issue-, context-, and intervention-dependent. Blanket labeling of heterogeneous views under one of these headings has been shown to do little to further considerations of climate science and policy (3). Continued indiscriminate use of the terms will further polarize views on climate change, reduce media coverage to tit-for-tat finger-pointing, and do little to advance the unsteady relationship among climate science, society, and policy.

Disagreement over terminology and the potential impact on the discussion?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

It is based on two separate sources of data, the poll of those who claimed to be cliamte scientists and had published in the arena and the study of published papers both arrived at similar results using two different methodologies.

And both of them are flawed for different reasons.

For the Anderegg et. al 2010 paper see,

Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field “support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers” (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today. However, whereas expert credibility and prominence may dominate the opinion of what is true, it can never alter truth itself.

Young et al. (2) argue that publications in highly cited journals are relatively prone to be incorrect, and a young frustrated researcher wrote the following: “Very little creativity can be expected from scientists living in an atmosphere where you cannot ‘waste’ time on thinking about the science you are doing, but must rather spend time thinking where to get the next grant money from. In the research grant game, and thereby the papers game, you can't displease your colleagues.” The addressee was Storetvedt, who has openly challenged the established theory of continental drift. Storetvedt (3) argues that “the history of science demonstrates that the acceptance of proposals … implying that a ‘world view’ everyone has embraced should be given up—has always been met by massive resistance” (p. 397 in ref. 3). Classical research, moreover, shows that people are willing to accept obvious untruths in the presence of strong group pressure (4). A climate researcher has to decide which paradigm to pursue; will he get the same number of grants, publications, or citations by embracing the minority view among his peers? I believe not.

I do not claim that the ACC hypothesis is incorrect, but history has shown that predominating paradigms can be proven wrong. Thor Heyerdahl—the Kon-Tiki Man—was strongly opposed for his controversial theories, but sailing on a wooden raft from Peru to Polynesia in 1947, he showed that it was possible for the pre-Incan people to have colonized the South Pacific islands. Helge and Anne Stine Ingstad were also strongly criticized for their belief that the Vikings reached the American continent, but in 1960, they documented a Norse settlement at Newfoundland dating back to the 11th century. The works by Heyerdahl and the Ingstads were endorsed by Time to be among the most influential scientific achievements in the past century (5). Could it be that some of the researchers questioning the ACC hypothesis will be endorsed as the greatest scientists of the 21st century?

Nothing to refute the paper other than to state the papers used as reference as to the position may not be correct?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

It is based on two separate sources of data, the poll of those who claimed to be cliamte scientists and had published in the arena and the study of published papers both arrived at similar results using two different methodologies.

The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. The authors' treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority (1). The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all. The authors' framing of expertise was especially problematic. In a casting pregnant with self-fulfillment, the authors defined number of publications as expertise (italics). The italics were then dropped. Morphing the data of metrics into the conclusion of expertise (not italicized) was best supported by explicit argument in the Discussion section rather than by subtle wordplay. The same applied to prominence, although here the authors’ construct was more aligned with common usage, and of course, prominence does not connote knowledge and correctness in the same way as expertise.

Scientific merit does not derive from the number, productivity, or prominence of those holding a certain view—truth by majority rule or oligarchical fiat. The history of science is replete with views (e.g., a geocentric universe or the immutability of species) that were widely held, held by the most prominent of men, and wrong. Here, we do not have homogeneous consensus absent a few crackpot dissenters. There is variation among the majority, and a minority, with core competency, who question some underlying premises. It would seem more profitable to critique the scientific evidence than count up scientists, publications, and the like. Policy needs may require action before scientific certainty, but one should not confuse taking a stand with obliteration of the factual and interpretive uncertainties underlying that stand. The majority of climate scientists favor some form of anthropogenic CC (and that view is not disputed here). That they overshadow the small minority of dissenters in certain publication metrics is to be expected as almost tautological.

In the logical fallacy of an ad hominem argument, the characteristics, qualities, or failings of adversaries rather than the merits of their case are argued. Here, the authors addressed the worth of CC critics (and agnostics) as scientists rather than the validity of their science (1). Regarding purely scientific questions, it may be justified to discount nonexperts. However, here, dissenters included established climate researchers. The article undermined their expert standing and then, extrapolated expertise to the more personal credibility. Using these methods to portray certain researchers as not credible and, by implication, to be ignored is highly questionable. Tarring them as individuals by group metrics is unwarranted.

Publication of this article as an objective scientific study does a true disservice to scientific discourse. Prominent scientific journals must focus on scientific merit without sway from extracurricular forces. They must remain cautious about lending their imprimatur to works that seem more about agenda and less about science, more about promoting a certain dogma and less about using all of the evidence to better our understanding of the natural world.

The confusion between the evidence of the belief percentage and the evidence of factuality is lost on this person it seems. How does it refute the percentage of belief exactly?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein